Conflict is something that many people wish to avoid. Others thrive on it so much that they have trouble imagining life without it. The idea is to embrace conflict as a modus operandi for change, but be willing to live with peace once change has been achieved.

     Living with conflict is something that is on some levels, a fact of life. But for some people, conflict is equated mainly with violence, either on the personal level, or on a more national or global level. Indeed, it seems to make sense that the more personal violence one experiences, the easier it is to see all the dissension in the world and lose heart. This is especially true if one has no internal resolution of what is going on his or her own life. Conflict is synonymous with violence to these people. This makes it something to be avoided, rather than used as a tool of compromise and to change of the future.

     There is nothing at all wrong with wanting to avoid violence. In fact, it seems to make logical to choose this option, if at all possible. The problem is the automatic association of conflict with violence. It leads a person to avoid more difficult questions on a personal level. He or she may be more likely to capitulate to others than to think issues through. Worse, this person may let violence to go unabated for fear of confronting it. In this way, ironically, this person actually can cause the violence that he or she so much dreads with this mindframe. On a personal level, repression of darker emotions may cause a person to become physically ill. Or, the act of repression may result in an emotional powder keg explosion when he or she least expects it. In relationships, allowing one's voice to be squelched in order to avoid conflict may result in anger or rage that never gets resolved. This may terminate relationships that could have been saved, if the issues had just been discussed. On national or international levels, the association of conflict with violence could cause a society or people to be so repressed as to actually cause violent revolutions. In the most extreme cases, the fear of conflict could actually allow a tyrant to be ruled unabated. History is replete with tyrants that ruled until directly confronted; Hitler, Saddam, and Charles Taylor are just three examples of this phenomenon.



     The flip side to this is people can become so addicted to conflict that they are not willing to let go of fighting. Many people know of couples who never seem to stop fighting; the Hatfields and McCoys are a famous example of families locked in eternal fueds. Long civil wars, such as the Sudan conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, or terrorism, such as al-Qaeda, would fall into this category. Yitzhak Rabin and Anwar Sadat were dignitaries murdered by their own countrymen. Their killers were zealots that saw their peace efforts of as traitorous to national interests. As Ariel Sharon continues the withdrawal of Israeli settlers from the West Bank, he must navigate his way not only with Abbas and the Palestinians, but the more radical Israelis who feel any compromise with the Palestinians is a form of defeat. This addiction to conflict is so commonplace that authors such as Robert D. Kaplan speculate that world wide peace is actually more dangerous for the world than periodic warfare. In essence, peacetime would leave a vacuum for those with more aggressive tendencies. The end of the military would remove a viable and acceptable outlet for these impulses, and perhaps cause these people to cause chaos via insurgency or criminal mayhem. The population that Kaplan refers to is an extreme example of those who use conflict as a lifestyle, and cannot or will not move away from that mindset.

     It would seem that the best alternative is to use conflict as a means of change. The fact that one has dark impulses, or that there is personal conflict, national injustice, and international differences makes it obvious that some issues cannot be ignored. Perhaps ignoring them would make the situation even worse. But constructive conflict is extremely difficult without resorting to violence. This is because successful negotiation of conflict requires one to recognize both his or her needs, as well as those of the adversary. Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, Frederik Willem de Klerk, Pope John Paul II, and Martin Luther King are some of the most successful examples of this "middle way' in modern times. In coming up with a compromise that is satisfactory to both parties, one has to give up some of his or her positions. This may not seem like a resolution at all to some people, hence the extremists who feel justified in their views. And they are right in this way: ignore too many of your needs, and you invite domination, which is not a resolution of conflict, only a subtle perpetuation of its worst aspects.

     To find the successful middle path, one has to believe in the dignity of all people, but also in the end of destructive violence. There is no easy way to find this alternative, other than to work through all options at the time. One has to cultivate the characteristics of patience and understanding to wade through these issues, both with oneself and with others. But facing the reality of conflict is the only way that growth and cooperation can take place. It is in the confrontation that one can find true resolution.